JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: amit85 on August 23, 2009, 02:57:01 PM
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763386,00.html
I am really pissed now. >:( If left government was doing something like it all coutry would protest. But since settlements are freezed by so called "right" no one cares >:( That's insane. :'(
I voted for Likud and now I see was fooled. I wish i listened to Chaim. Phony right is much worse than left.
-
Just watch the West bank become third world territory.
-
Damn Israeli appeasers! >:(
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763386,00.html
I am really pissed now. >:( If left government was doing something like it all coutry would protest. But since settlements are freezed by so called "right" no one cares >:( That's insane. :'(
I voted for Likud and now I see was fooled. I wish i listened to Chaim. Phony right is much worse than left.
In protest, I said the same thing months ago. The worst tragedies in both America and Israel come from the so-called "right" not the left. This is another example of treason and corruption at the highest levels. If the Right were truly right, Israel would tell the world to [censored] and mind their own business and build on THEIR land while America would close the ....ing border and toss out this idea of Socialist Medicare like Cuba or Canada.
-
Phony right is much worse than left.
How so? Isn't it just the same? If the result is the same, what's the difference? In any event, I imagine this would happen much sooner and with much worse in addition to it if it was the left that was elected. Better off with the right, but they still betray as you see right here. Goal should be to change the right and influence it, not to give up and sit out and let the left and arabs run the show.
-
It is despicable for the Right to do any such thing. A pure example of shame, fraud and corruption. When one on the Left speaks or does this it is expected as per their "enlightened" self hating Utopian pseudo-religion but if one on the "Right" does it, it is purely corruption and criminal. When one on the Right (which stands pretty much for everything contra to the egalitarian communalist idea) campaigns on a Right Wing platform and wins it is pure treason for him to revert to a "Leftist" schema. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing. A flat out lie. One does not expect one from the Right to do Left and one from the Left to do Right.
Sadly, this has happened all too often in both America, England and Israel. It is happening here with Stephen Harper as we speak. Just a few weeks ago he signed another "Free Trade" (Marxism) agreement with Mexico.
It would be best if those whom are elected actually DO what they were elected to do.
-
It would be best if those whom are elected actually DO what they were elected to do.
Of course. But at the end of the day, you're better off electing the right, and then you have a chance they'll do what they were put there to do. If you elect the left or sit out elections so the left wins.... then you're guaranteed to get shafted....
-
I'd rather know what I'm getting. If one elects a leftist they get what they vote for. If one elects a right wing that individual should be held accountable by option of very real possibility of being taken to trial and jailed... The problem is, like Canadians, Americans are too dumbed down to do what their forefathers had done: Boston Tea Party, American Revolution etc.
-
How so? Isn't it just the same? If the result is the same, what's the difference? In any event, I imagine this would happen much sooner and with much worse in addition to it if it was the left that was elected. Better off with the right, but they still betray as you see right here. Goal should be to change the right and influence it, not to give up and sit out and let the left and arabs run the show.
What he means is that the p.r. is more likely to get the public behind these insane retreats than the honest left.
-
I'd rather know what I'm getting. If one elects a leftist they get what they vote for. If one elects a right wing that individual should be held accountable by option of very real possibility of being taken to trial and jailed... The problem is, like Canadians, Americans are too dumbed down to do what their forefathers had done: Boston Tea Party, American Revolution etc.
The other morning I was listening to one of the local talk show hosts on the radio at work. The host was talking about the shvartza Administrations antics in Washington. A fellow I work with remarked to me that there is really not much we can do but grin and bare it. I sharply responded to him that there was quite a bit we could do. When I told him a good old revolution might be in order I saw his back stiffen and I though he and another guy who was near by were going to faint. The real problem is for now not much has been taken away from the American people.... Unemployment is a bit high but for the most part the chickens Reverend Wright talked about last year have not really come home to roost. Let things get really out of proportion and then see the picture change over night.
-
Well, Pretty soon America will be saying "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST"
-
cjd, you pointed out exactly my point. You think like an American while those around you have been infected with this progressive dumbing down and passiveness. You know, I really liked the book "Decline of the American Republic" by John T. Flynn. It was written in the mid '50's some of its contents are the blatant unconstitutional power, growth/expansion and deeds of the Federal Government. The stacking of the Supreme Court with Left Leaning Judges by the various Presidents Democrat and "Republican", The power structure of Wall St. (Banking and Industrialists) and its pressure, interations and influence on the Government and lastly the pure unconstitutional socialization of America with examples like the TVP (Tennessee Valley Act/Authority). In the back he includes a copy of the US Constitution to show how far and how much the Federal Government has expanded its power, expanded its authority, expanded period and usurped the power away from the States were, according to the Constitution, actually lies...
What one must keep in mind is that the book was written in 1955. This, as Flynn states, had been going on prior to the printing of his book and is still going on openly today.... This is one example, of why I personally feel that it is all a fraud. No matter who you get to choose from to be President, the outcome will be the same.... ("With No Apologies" the personal biography of Berry Goldwater is very good for those who wish to see how Ronald Reagan had to bend over to the Establishment for this Presidency. I didn't say this, strait from the pen of Sen. Berry Goldwater '64 Presidential Candidate who challenged the Establishment and lost...)
Agreed cjd 100% and it is sad. Canada is the same way....
-
It is very sad and something I never though I would really get to the extent its has in America or Canada. The book you speak of must be very good it still commands $25.00 on Amazon
-
Yes cjd, it is a good book. There are many out there but this one, due to its date and who the author is, makes it a bit more creditable. I lucked out and picked my copy at a book fair for $1.00 or something. It is on Abebooks for $6.50. You are lucky in the States you can get books cheep while here in Canada the price triples due to shipping or the seller not shipping to Canada.
AbeBooks: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Flynn&sts=t&tn=Decline+of+the+American+Republic&x=0&y=0
Albris Books: http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=9888098529&author=flynn&qwork=1538341&title=decline+of+the+american+republic&qsort=&page=1
-
Freezing of the settlement constructions may also lead to expansion of the mosques.
-
I'd rather know what I'm getting.
That to me makes no sense.
If you vote right, you are 50/50 (or whatever) that they are going to do the right thing. (whether you know or can be sure or not).
If you vote left, you are 100% guaranteed they will destroy you.
Either way you are powerless to stop them once you elect them. So what difference does it make if you "know" or don't know ahead of time whether the rightwing you elect will betray you or not, and how often or on how many issues they will (and that of course you can't always know even with a phony like Bibi).
-
If you vote right, you are 50/50 (or whatever) that they are going to do the right thing. (whether you know or can be sure or not).
If you vote left, you are 100% guaranteed they will destroy you.
Either way you are powerless to stop them once you elect them. So what difference does it make if you "know" or don't know ahead of time whether the rightwing you elect will betray you or not, and how often or on how many issues they will (and that of course you can't always know even with a phony like Bibi).
I disagree. The so-called right and the so-called left in Israel always wind up doing the same thing--stabbing the Jewish people in the back. The only difference is that the right pretends not to for a while and that with the left, at least some of the people will stand up and resist it.
-
and that with the left, at least some of the people will stand up and resist it.
How? When has this happened?
Show me historical examples of this happening. Because it doesn't. It makes you feel better that the newspaper has a few more angry articles or the people have a few more protests or dislike the govt a bit more? What purpose does any of that serve and what does it accomplish? Nothing!
The people largely hated Olmert as PM. Approval rating was something like 1%. It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria. It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights. What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.
Did protests stop Rabin and Oslo accords? No. Did anger at the left stop them from importing arafat y's and thousands of his terrorist nazi cronies into Israel from Tunisia? NO. Did it stop Barak's surrender to Lebanon (first war) or suicidal policies there? No. Did protest/anger against the left change their course after their pathetic 'mercy on lebanese' campaign of 2006 and 'praying for a miracle' ceasefire agreement (a miracle that UN would "enforce peace" at the border) No.
Once they are elected, the public is powerless to stop them once they have determined course on a given issue. I can't see the logic in actively electing the left/meretz/arab coalition under kadima (that includes not voting, which because of how Israel's system is structured, is basically giving a vote to the left).
The protests also did not stop expulsion from Gaza. The public will (which WAS against it, even though it was led by a so-called rightwing strongman) did not stop that.
-
The people largely hated Olmert as PM. Approval rating was something like 1%. It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria. It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights. What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.
It would have been very hard for him to have gotten the entire country behind any massive surrender policies. Agreeing to it is one thing. If Olmert would have tried to go through with it, he would have been met with massive resistance on the ground. I do not think he or Ehud Barak would have been able to get the nation behind the Gaza withdrawal. Sharon was able to get the country to go along with him because as a so-called "rightist", people trusted him more and felt that if he really thought that it was necessary for peace, then it really must be.
-
The people largely hated Olmert as PM. Approval rating was something like 1%. It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria. It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights. What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.
It would have been very hard for him to have gotten the entire country behind any massive surrender policies. Agreeing to it is one thing. If Olmert would have tried to go through with it, he would have been met with massive resistance on the ground. I do not think he or Ehud Barak would have been able to get the nation behind the Gaza withdrawal. Sharon was able to get the country to go along with him because as a so-called "rightist", people trusted him more and felt that if he really thought that it was necessary for peace, then it really must be.
"Resistance on the ground" ? LIKE WHAT? If by resistance you mean angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and lots of people who think it will be a disaster - that is not resistance , that is hot air !
The same hot air we saw in Gush Katif.
-
Yes, exactly, hot air. Since Sharon was "the right", the vast majority of the Israeli right passively accepted it, even if they did not agree with it. They didn't think there was any point in opposing a fellow member of the "Israeli right".
Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.
-
it does not matter if israeli gov has freezed the settlements. The patriotic and a fighter israeli will continue to build or stay there, eg. Hilltop Youth
Amit, are you Indian? from the names it sounds so.
-
Yes, exactly, hot air. Since Sharon was "the right", the vast majority of the Israeli right passively accepted it, even if they did not agree with it. They didn't think there was any point in opposing a fellow member of the "Israeli right".
The hot air I was referring to is the so-called "resistance" put up against leftwing govt's. I already cited you a number of examples from WHILE OLMERT WAS IN OFFICE.
Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.
BS. The physical resistance at Amona was mostly due to lessons learned from the Gush Katif failure, and also the difference in ideology between the groups in these two places (Just to give you a hint, Gush Katif was very different place of settlers than those who filled up Amona and came to defend it). Gush Katif resistance failed not because of the reasons you say. It failed because of unwillingness to do what was necessary (would be true under rightwing or leftwing govt leadership - no difference there, both represent Israeli state which many are unwilling to oppose even if it's an evil policy against themselves), and because of active betrayal from within. There were thousands of settlers willing to show up and defend Gush Katif like those who showed up and defended Amona. These thousands were betrayed by so-called leaders within the so-called resistance. Not because expulsion was left- or right- directed policy. But because it was Israeli policy, plain and simple.
If you think Gush Katif failed because rightwing people thought it was a "good idea" 'since ol' sharon said so' you really have no idea what you're talking about, and have either misread this situation or come to an inaccurate oversimplified conclusion not based on the facts and just assumed it was correct.
But the fact remains despite all of these semantics I'm picking at with you. Amona was a failure at the end of the day. The tactics may have been more sound than at Gush Katif, the ideology might have been better, but the "resistance" failed because Amona no longer stands.
And that is what I meant by comparing the "hot air" of so-called "resistance" to the left - comparing that hot air with gush Katif. Not that gush katif was hot air. It failed for a whole slew of different reasons. But because the end result is the same. The govt goes thru with its plan undeterred. And that is GUARANTEED by the hot air of angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and public discomfort with - the left.
-
It makes perfect sense. I wish not to delve into the same crap that caused past conflicts. You'll see when you read books like John T. Flynn or the memoirs of various politicians. The fact of the matter is the "Left" and the "Right" are both financed and organized by the exact same entities.... At least that's what Goldwater, MacDonald, Rockefeller and others had to say. I think they'd know better then I. ;-)
I'd just like to vote for one that will do what he says he'll do and has the balls to say openly what he feels like Geert Wilders for example.
-
The hot air I was referring to is the so-called "resistance" put up against leftwing govt's. I already cited you a number of examples from WHILE OLMERT WAS IN OFFICE.
I never said it was ENOUGH resistance--just that it was more with the leftist than the phony rightist.
Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.
[/quote]
BS. The physical resistance at Amona was mostly due to lessons learned from the Gush Katif failure, and also the difference in ideology between the groups in these two places (Just to give you a hint, Gush Katif was very different place of settlers than those who filled up Amona and came to defend it).[/quote]
And also because average "settlers" (I really hate that term, I prefer pioneers) were now facing a regime that OVERTLY hated them.
Gush Katif resistance failed not because of the reasons you say. It failed because of unwillingness to do what was necessary (would be true under rightwing or leftwing govt leadership - no difference there, both represent Israeli state which many are unwilling to oppose even if it's an evil policy against themselves), and because of active betrayal from within.
Yes, I am very aware of the perfidy wrought by the so-called Yesha Council, but at the same time facts are facts. Arik Sharon had a trumped-up reputation as a great war hero and stalwart opponent of any concessions. Israelis had a lot more personal respect for him than they do Olmert or Barak. That's undeniable. That is 100% established fact and any Israeli will agree with me. Even if they personally disagreed with Sharon, nobody (or very few people) would ever actually believe he deliberately wished to harm fellow Jews. THIS lulled a lot of sincere rightists into not resisting with any more means than by chanting and singing songs to the Nazi soldiers and cops.
There were thousands of settlers willing to show up and defend Gush Katif like those who showed up and defended Amona. These thousands were betrayed by so-called leaders within the so-called resistance. Not because expulsion was left- or right- directed policy. But because it was Israeli policy, plain and simple.
They were talked into "peaceful protests" by their leaders, yes, but still, very few of the protestors truly hated Sharon the way they would Feces Now or similar self-hating leftists.
If you think Gush Katif failed because rightwing people thought it was a "good idea" 'since ol' sharon said so'
This explains a big part of it, yes. Maybe they didn't actually think it was a good idea, but they didn't think it was right to violently oppose such a proven "war hawk" as Sharon.
you really have no idea what you're talking about, and have either misread this situation or come to an inaccurate oversimplified conclusion not based on the facts and just assumed it was correct.
Have you listened to any Ask JTFs comparing public acceptance of the left vs. the "right"?
But the fact remains despite all of these semantics I'm picking at with you. Amona was a failure at the end of the day. The tactics may have been more sound than at Gush Katif, the ideology might have been better, but the "resistance" failed because Amona no longer stands.
Ultimately any "resistance" will fail as long as the secular, brainwashed majority of Israel allows the Bolshevik media to talk them into opposing "religious extremists" and the like--but does that mean we should give up and stop trying?
And that is what I meant by comparing the "hot air" of so-called "resistance" to the left - comparing that hot air with gush Katif. Not that gush katif was hot air. It failed for a whole slew of different reasons.
How many people actually physically resisted at Gush Katif? Yeah, 10,000 Jews might have showed up to oppose it, but how many of those were strictly "peaceful protestors"?
But because the end result is the same. The govt goes thru with its plan undeterred. And that is GUARANTEED by the hot air of angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and public discomfort with - the left.
You are correct, there is a whole lot more public outrage when the Israeli honest-left does horrible things than when the Israeli phony-right does.
-
The hot air I was referring to is the so-called "resistance" put up against leftwing govt's. I already cited you a number of examples from WHILE OLMERT WAS IN OFFICE.
I never said it was ENOUGH resistance--just that it was more with the leftist than the phony rightist.
Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.
BS. The physical resistance at Amona was mostly due to lessons learned from the Gush Katif failure, and also the difference in ideology between the groups in these two places (Just to give you a hint, Gush Katif was very different place of settlers than those who filled up Amona and came to defend it).[/quote]
And also because average "settlers" (I really hate that term, I prefer pioneers) were now facing a regime that OVERTLY hated them.
Gush Katif resistance failed not because of the reasons you say. It failed because of unwillingness to do what was necessary (would be true under rightwing or leftwing govt leadership - no difference there, both represent Israeli state which many are unwilling to oppose even if it's an evil policy against themselves), and because of active betrayal from within.
Yes, I am very aware of the perfidy wrought by the so-called Yesha Council, but at the same time facts are facts. Arik Sharon had a trumped-up reputation as a great war hero and stalwart opponent of any concessions. Israelis had a lot more personal respect for him than they do Olmert or Barak. That's undeniable. That is 100% established fact
Yeah, so what? Lots of people respected Sharon, big deal. What does it have to do with anything? The motivation to support his evil plan was not based on "respect for Sharon." And the opposition was also not based on whether they respected him or not. I'm sure that out of those who opposed it, many of them had respected sharon in the past or might have even still respected him, even tho they were willing to fight against him.
-
THIS lulled a lot of sincere rightists into not resisting with any more means than by chanting and singing songs to the Nazi soldiers and cops.
Again, this is not why they did those things. You have oversimplified the issue, and this is simply not so. They did not sing and dance with expulsion forces because they liked Sharon. You missed the boat on what happened in Gush Katif.
Here, start with this video.
http://esseragaroth.blogspot.com/2009/07/yesha-council-modern-day-spies-film.html
It's posted there in 4 parts.
This will explain that it had nothing to do with Sharon. It had to do with "rabbis" and yesha council leaders and even settlers themselves who have a certain ideology. With their ideology it makes no difference whether Sharon runs Israel or whether Dorit Beinisch runs Israel. Look at Zambish, bentzi-lieberman, Rabbi Aviner, etc..... Do you see them citing 'Sharon is great' or 'the policy is correct' or "this will improve israel's security" when they try to calm down/sabotage the opposition to expulsion ? NO. And those rabbis who said to hug expulsion officers, they also did not say that Sharon is right in what he's doing. They said 'we have to obey' 'we cannot oppose state of Israel' 'a Jew cannot fight a Jew' ....... etc
-
But because the end result is the same. The govt goes thru with its plan undeterred. And that is GUARANTEED by the hot air of angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and public discomfort with - the left.
You are correct, there is a whole lot more public outrage when the Israeli honest-left does horrible things than when the Israeli phony-right does.
[/quote]
You're missing the point. "Outrage" expressed in the form of angry editorials, cab-driver critiques, and overall public dislike of the PM, does not accomplish anything except an unhappy public. That is meaningless. There is still only a small core of people who will ideologically stand against the evil, whether right or left. Those who won't, won't - whether the leader is right or left. If that small core has the "sympathy" of the general public, or the "disproval" of the general public is completely irrelevant. The general public sits on its duff. What matters is if that core succeeds. The same stumbling blocks are in place whether the govt is leftist or rightist. But with leftist govt, you are just guaranteed more evil policy to oppose and fight against. And that makes it harder because you can't fight everything and have to split up your resources....
-
Look at Zambish, bentzi-lieberman, Rabbi Aviner, etc..... Do you see them citing 'Sharon is great' or 'the policy is correct' or "this will improve israel's security" when they try to calm down/sabotage the opposition to expulsion ? NO. And those rabbis who said to hug expulsion officers, they also did not say that Sharon is right in what he's doing. They said 'we have to obey' 'we cannot oppose state of Israel' 'a Jew cannot fight a Jew' ....... etc
No, I never said they did. I never said they AGREED with him--I said that they could not bring themselves to violently resist a "hawkish" PM who had such an established and decorated history as a war hero.
Since Olmert and Co. are overtly against the pioneers and openly anti-Torah, it is much easier for the above figures to support physical resistance to their schemes.
-
The reason for the difference between Amona and Gush Katif is in my opinion twofold. On the one-hand, most of the Gush Katif residents besides being righteous "settlers" and nationalistic Jews (both religious and secular there) and the pride of the country if you ask me, amongst most of them the happy-go-lucky heretical mamlachtiut (and associated rabbis) was prevalent. They were not willing to really resist in a meaningful way and take "hostile" action to prevent the govt's plans - for the most part. Amona, those who filled up the line of buildings there, and those who showed up to defend it, were not like that. #2, at Amona people learned from the mistakes made at gush katif (including those who showed up to really resist but were deterred by the masses and their unwillingness and/or by the sabotage of the whole resistance movement from within), they learned this lesson and did not have the yesha-council- albatross preventing them from taking action this time around. So more ideologically sound people showed up, who were more willing to fight, and less yesha council interference. That produced the recipe for the difference between amona and gush katif. NOT whether Olmert ordered it or whether Begin could have ordered it. (he's the most popular PM of all time in Israel - and even the right still generally looks at him fondly despite his mistakes as PM)
And if Chaim disagrees with that, which I think you might say so, then I strongly disagree with him. But lets find out from Chaim, that would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
-
Look at Zambish, bentzi-lieberman, Rabbi Aviner, etc..... Do you see them citing 'Sharon is great' or 'the policy is correct' or "this will improve israel's security" when they try to calm down/sabotage the opposition to expulsion ? NO. And those rabbis who said to hug expulsion officers, they also did not say that Sharon is right in what he's doing. They said 'we have to obey' 'we cannot oppose state of Israel' 'a Jew cannot fight a Jew' ....... etc
No, I never said they did. I never said they AGREED with him--I said that they could not bring themselves to violently resist a "hawkish" PM who had such an established and decorated history as a war hero.
Nor would they resist a dove-ish leader like Olmert (he used to be rightwing too, remember? So I'm not sure I see the big contrast there... THEY WERE BOTH KADIMA!)...... Nor would they resist a decorated mossad agent like Livni, nor a judge turned prime minister (God forbid, and G-d help us), Dorit Beinish if she was the 'elected leader' of Israel. That's where I think you just don't understand.
And as far as "anti Torah" etc.... Sharon was secular so is Olmert and almost everyone. That isn't the point here either.
-
Olmert was never a war-hero, never pretended to oppose concessions, and at times appeared to openly disagree with the Sharon government. In 2002 when he was mayor of Yerushalayim, he for example would loudly demand that the IDF "conduct itself honorably" in battle (whatever the hell that means).
Even by the phony standards of the Israeli right-wing establishment, Olmert was always a Likud "RINO".
-
Olmert was never a war-hero, never pretended to oppose concessions, and at times appeared to openly disagree with the Sharon government. In 2002 when he was mayor of Yerushalayim, he for example would loudly demand that the IDF "conduct itself honorably" in battle (whatever the hell that means).
Even by the phony standards of the Israeli right-wing establishment, Olmert was always a Likud "RINO".
He was to the left of Kahane, but he was always perceived as rightwing by the general public, just as Sharon was. Only Olmert wasn't such a loose cannon, and was not a war hero or famous general, you're right. But he was a former 'rightwing' turned left. At least former likud turned left.
-
That produced the recipe for the difference between amona and gush katif. NOT whether Olmert ordered it or whether Begin could have ordered it. (he's the most popular PM of all time in Israel - and even the right still generally looks at him fondly despite his mistakes as PM)
You hit the nail on the head with the sentence I have bolded. Begin is still to this very day thought of as a "right-wing zealot" who was "forced" into evil compromises by Carter. Because of his pioneer exploits with the Irgun, Begin is viewed as pretty much untouchable by even the most hardcore Israeli rightists. Even Chaim refuses to harshly denounce him, which I disagree with. I think that Scripture speaks to individuals like Begin very well:
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.
Because Begin was a real "hardcore hawk", he was able to get essentially unanimous support for his hideous Sinai retreat. To this very day, the Sinai retreat and resultant so-called "peace with Egypt" is the third rail of Israeli politics--nobody dares oppose it in hindsight. I can promise you that if Golda Meir had tried to evacuate the Sinai she would have met with ferocious resistance from average Israelis and the IDF itself (it was less brainwashed then), and that if she had succeeded with it many "rightist" Israeli commentators today would attack her ferociously in hindsight.
And if Chaim disagrees with that, which I think you might say so, then I strongly disagree with him. But lets find out from Chaim, that would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
He's said this many times over--that it is much harder for the right to "wake up" when a phony rightist is in office.
-
He was to the left of Kahane, but he was always perceived as rightwing by the general public, just as Sharon was. Only Olmert wasn't such a loose cannon, and was not a war hero or famous general, you're right. But he was a former 'rightwing' turned left. At least former likud turned left.
He was only "right-wing" in that he belonged to Likud. At one time Likud's platform called for total opposition to withdrawals and surrenders. No, it was never practiced, but publicly all the members of Likud were lockstep behind it. Olmert never was. Even at the height of the intifada in 2002, when shahids were murdering something like 75 Israelis per week (may G-d avenge their blood), he was publicly insisting that military campaigns be "humane".
-
The Yesha Council isn't so right wing itself, but the leader of the Yesha Council said that Netanyahu is worse than Olmert.
Here is a Hebrew article. http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/193485 (http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/193485)
-
The Yesha Council isn't so right wing itself, but the leader of the Yesha Council said that Netanyahu is worse than Olmert.
Here is a Hebrew article. http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/193485 (http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/193485)
Anything the YC says is not to be trusted, but there is some truth to this. So far, the pioneer activists have not done a good job of setting up to resist Lewinsky's expulsions (which have been small-scale to date, but that can change anytime).
-
Gesture to US or gesture to Barack Osama running (down the drain) the US? >:(
-
A good gesture to the US would be to withdraw from the UN, mobilize the IDF, bomb Mecca, wipe out Iran and drive out all the Jew hating Muhammadan savages from Eretz. Sorry for my intolerance towards such progressive, open minded and truly tolerant aspect of pluralist Muhammadan society....
-
You are a filthy Muhammadan savage. May you all perish! GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!
-
That produced the recipe for the difference between amona and gush katif. NOT whether Olmert ordered it or whether Begin could have ordered it. (he's the most popular PM of all time in Israel - and even the right still generally looks at him fondly despite his mistakes as PM)
You hit the nail on the head with the sentence I have bolded. Begin is still to this very day thought of as a "right-wing zealot"
No. Not a 'rightwing zealot.' Not a zealot at all. He is thought of as nationalist who wanted to unite his people and wanted equal treatment for all Jews. Yes, much of the country praises him because they value the peace agreement he made with Egypt. But in terms of the rightwing, even if he made mistakes as a Prime Minister, you can't really turn the guy into some kind of villain. Look at his life accomplishments. He was a Jewish hero. Everyone even the left, recognizes that. He was a poor PM. But out of all them, he was a Jewish hero. A real idealist and a man amongst boys. I can't see any comparison with him out of all prime ministers. THAT is what I meant. And everyone, from left to right generally recognizes that.
who was "forced" into evil compromises by Carter.
He wasn't forced but he WAS pressured and was deceived by sadat (as well as carter). If you can't see that you simply are unwilling to consult the history. From what I understand, later in his life Begin regretted his mistake of giving away Sinai. So that makes your citing of verse even more inappropriate, but it was wrong in the first place. Begin is not in a league with modern day mafiosos/money-buys-everything Israeli politicians like Olmert and Sharon. They can't even shine his shoes.
Because Begin was a real "hardcore hawk", he was able to get essentially unanimous support for his hideous Sinai retreat.
You use strange terms. "Hardcore" hawk? What is that exactly? Don't know of any Israeli that uses a term like that. In any event, it wasn't for this reason that the people agreed with the peace accords. You again are trying to superimpose an oversimplification of your own making onto what happened. The people wanted peace with Egypt because Egypt had launched 2 invasions of Israel over the course of a 7 year period ( as well as the invasion they lost in the independence war) and maintained open hostility to Israel that was seemingly not going to end. But Israelis had no reason to NOT want it to end. They thought, if peace is real here, it means we won't have to fight these animals anymore. No more all-out-wars like we had in 67 and 73. What is bad about that? Problem was it was not real peace. I don't think people were saying "Well Begin is really rightwing so even though I don't trust sadat, Begin will protect me I have faith in him." The people were enamored with Sadat and his "gracious" visit to knesset. There was a hysteria. A national hysteria. The left and centrists supported it because they wanted peace. No more wars against egyptian garbage. The right some were probably deceived by Sadat... And those who weren't deceived by Sadat, I don't believe they would support Begin on that. You pretend that Israelis are mindless. They aren't. If I think I smell a rat, I don't just say oh well so-and-so says its ok, so there's no rat...... Do you?
I can promise you that if Golda Meir had tried to evacuate the Sinai she would have met with ferocious resistance from average Israelis and the IDF itself
Based on what? You just made this up. Israelis would be equally supportive of her peacemaking if she had done it rather than begin. If she was the one saying 'no more bloodshed" and shaking sadat's hand she'd be heralded by the "peace delusional" to this day. And the same ones who oppose Begin on the right, would also oppose Meir. Where do you get the idea that no one questions that move today? The majority of Israelis agrees with it for many reasons. But the rightwing/kahanists/settlers.... They don't.
And if Chaim disagrees with that, which I think you might say so, then I strongly disagree with him. But lets find out from Chaim, that would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
He's said this many times over--that it is much harder for the right to "wake up" when a phony rightist is in office.
But I'm already awake. And so is that small core who is ideologically willing to oppose the evil of the Israeli govt. You might be confusing the situation of America with that of Israel. In America, people wake up and then their 'angry letters' 'lobbying' calling congressman, staging rallies and protests, etc, all exercises of the democratic system, actually affect change. This type of "cab driver criticism" really does achieve things in America. It doesn't in Israel. So that is irrelevant. It means nothing in Israel. It does not stop the judicial tyranny there. The more leftwing govt, the more leftwing judicial tyranny and evil policy, plain and simple. "Awake" or not, a person in Israel has to be willing. Only a small core in the rightwing is.
-
He was to the left of Kahane, but he was always perceived as rightwing by the general public, just as Sharon was. Only Olmert wasn't such a loose cannon, and was not a war hero or famous general, you're right. But he was a former 'rightwing' turned left. At least former likud turned left.
He was only "right-wing" in that he belonged to Likud. At one time Likud's platform called for total opposition to withdrawals and surrenders. No, it was never practiced, but publicly all the members of Likud were lockstep behind it. Olmert never was. Even at the height of the intifada in 2002, when shahids were murdering something like 75 Israelis per week (may G-d avenge their blood), he was publicly insisting that military campaigns be "humane".
You do realize that Olmert was a politician way before 2002 right? I hope so.
-
Can't say I'm surprised >:(
-
Begin sunk into immense depression after giving away the Sinai. He realized that nothing good would come of it and spent the rest of his life living in recluse. A sad end for such a good man. The only problem I saw with Begin was due to Yitzak Shamir. When Begin was forming his government he looked towards relatively like minded people. Begin sent Shamir to Rabbi Kahane's home to discuss politics and learn about Kahane. Thanks to Shamir not being a G-d fearing man, he went back to Begin telling to stay away from Kahane he is an "extremist". - From Shamir's autobiography: "Summing Up".
Begin, had Kahane been in his cabinet, would never have given away the Sinai and if pressured or forced into doing so, Kahane would had of forced conditions, perhaps taking all the Arabs with it.
-
Phony right is much worse than left.
How so? Isn't it just the same? If the result is the same, what's the difference?
They are same when they are in power. However in opposition phony right behaves as real right. So here whats we get: when Avoda (Kadima) are in power we have a strong right opposition that can prevent many crazy initiatives (not always unfortunately). When Likud is in power we dont have any opposition.
-
Two thumbs down
-
Not a 'rightwing zealot.' Not a zealot at all.
OK, fine, forget my paraphrase of the buzzwords that are used by the Bolshevik left to describe him to this very day. The worldwide left still considers him a fierce militant, and the Israeli right still considers him a hero.
He is thought of as nationalist who wanted to unite his people and wanted equal treatment for all Jews.
Too bad his actions as PM showed otherwise.
Yes, much of the country praises him because they value the peace agreement he made with Egypt.
Israel is full of brainwashed, complacent, conformist people--on the left AND on the so-called "right".
But in terms of the rightwing, even if he made mistakes as a Prime Minister, you can't really turn the guy into some kind of villain.
Says who?
Look at his life accomplishments. He was a Jewish hero. Everyone even the left, recognizes that.
He was a Jewish hero in his youth, yes. In his later years he was something else.
He was a poor PM. But out of all them, he was a Jewish hero. A real idealist and a man amongst boys.
How can you be a poor leader and a hero yet at the same time? If I were to call any PM a "Jewish hero", it would be Levi Eshkol.
I can't see any comparison with him out of all prime ministers. THAT is what I meant. And everyone, from left to right generally recognizes that.
And this is very unfortunate. Because he has this ridiculous aura of greatness, he's essentially untouchable (even more so, in a way, than that alcoholic parasite Rabin). What I mean, is, that the left still attacks him for not being suicidal enough (lol!), nobody ever criticizes the logic of Camp David itself or argues that it was a bad idea for Israel.
He wasn't forced but he WAS pressured and was deceived by sadat (as well as carter).
Sadat was a two-bit sand negro coon. Everybody knew that and everybody knew that he was a paper tiger by that stage. The reason he had so much success for the first week of his Yom Kippur jihad was because he caught the Bolshevized Golda Meir IDF with its pants down. As soon as the IDF woke up and properly mobilized, Israel (despite having lost most of its tank force) mopped up the sand with those negroes pretty roundly. If it wasn't for the hollering of the Jew-hater Nixon, Israeli infantry could have sacked Cairo and Damascus in a few more days.
If you can't see that you simply are unwilling to consult the history.
I am not denying that Sadat tried his best taqqiyah with Begin, but he knew Egypt was the mortal enemy. Ultimately, the key player was Israel's "ally" Jimmy Carter.
From what I understand, later in his life Begin regretted his mistake of giving away Sinai.
Oh, really? Where did you see that? Did he ever PUBLICLY express his regret and apologize? Did he ever use any of his influence to argue against later land-for-peace deals or tell Reagan and GWB1 where to shove it? Did he raise his voice for Jonathan Pollard? The answers to those would be no, no, and no. Some footnotes in his memoirs or something he privately told his best friend don't count. Even after leaving office, he had the voice, clout, and prestige to be a powerful player, and he was simply too big of a force for the Bolshevik government to throw in the gulag. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
So that makes your citing of verse even more inappropriate, but it was wrong in the first place.
Wrong? How so? The Bible verse I cited was very simple and straightforward. Are you trying to say that it WASN'T a sin for him to cave to world pressure and stab the Jews in the back?
Begin is not in a league with modern day mafiosos/money-buys-everything Israeli politicians like Olmert and Sharon. They can't even shine his shoes.
Comparing "bad" and "evil" is a choice we sometimes need to make in presidential elections, but it's no standard for righteousness in the elemental sense. Hitler tried to exterminate every last Jewish man, woman, and child on the planet. Stalin was fine with letting Jews who gave up their faith and became faithful little communists who worshipped him live. Does this mean that Hitler "wasn't fit to shine Stalin's shoes"?
You use strange terms. "Hardcore" hawk? What is that exactly? Don't know of any Israeli that uses a term like that.
Forget it already... you know what I was trying to say.
In any event, it wasn't for this reason that the people agreed with the peace accords. You again are trying to superimpose an oversimplification of your own making onto what happened.
The reason, then and now, is that the Israeli public is inherently trusting and goes along with the government, especially one with such a huge right-wing, nationalistic reputation as Begin's.
The people wanted peace with Egypt because Egypt had launched 2 invasions of Israel over the course of a 7 year period ( as well as the invasion they lost in the independence war) and maintained open hostility to Israel that was seemingly not going to end.
Egypt had its camelass handed to it in 1967, and after Israel was able to heroically mobilize against a total two-front onslaught from a state of zero percent readiness (worse than when Poland was attacked by the Nazis and Soviets simultaneously), it whupped Egypt pretty soundly in '73 too.
But Israelis had no reason to NOT want it to end. They thought, if peace is real here, it means we won't have to fight these animals anymore.
Yes, that is the difference between Jews then, now, and probably forever (barring a miraculous transformation of heart) and Amalek. Jews don't eat, breathe, sleep, and dream murder, even when they are facing a Shoah. Even during the actual German Shoah, most Jews would not even think of violently resisting the Nazis. Anne Frank wrote in her journal that she did not hate the Germans, and 98% of all Jewry (excepting the Jabotinskyites and the heroic Warsaw Ghetto heroes, may G-d avenge their blood), to the very end, felt like there was no choice but to march like cattle to the slaughterhouse. They said Ze'ev Jabotinsky was crazy and refused to listen to his call to arms. Thirty years later, when the Jews were well-armed and had a chance to do what G-d commanded and Joshua actually did to the Amalekite scum of the Middle East, they choked.
No more all-out-wars like we had in 67 and 73.
Again, this goes back to the Jewish pacifistic mindset. Jews just don't love death, which has been a tragic thing for them many times. If Israel had the will Egypt could have been rendered completely "Arabrein" in either of those wars. Jews are human beings who have a conscience, and that conscience unfortunately rears its head at the least opportune times. They are always feeling bad for the scummiest slime of the world and fearing the opinions of the goyim.
What is bad about that? Problem was it was not real peace.
The problem is that the vast majority of Jews worldwide, Israel included, have completely lost the warrior heart that G-d gave them at Horeb.
I don't think people were saying "Well Begin is really rightwing so even though I don't trust sadat, Begin will protect me I have faith in him."
What is a secular Israeli to do? They have to have faith in something/someone, it's human nature. This is exactly why most Israelis supported the Gush Katif ethnic cleansing.
The people were enamored with Sadat and his "gracious" visit to knesset. There was a hysteria. A national hysteria. The left and centrists supported it because they wanted peace. No more wars against egyptian garbage. The right some were probably deceived by Sadat... And those who weren't deceived by Sadat, I don't believe they would support Begin on that.
Nobody on the so-called right spoke up against Begin. Literally only a tiny handful of pioneers did--much smaller than the number that tried to resist Gush Katif.
You pretend that Israelis are mindless. They aren't.
Unfortunately, most major Israeli opinion polls and election results say otherwise. Kadima got the single largest vote of any party in this spring's election, for instance.
If I think I smell a rat, I don't just say oh well so-and-so says its ok, so there's no rat...... Do you?
First of all, expulsions of Jews had never been tried before. There wasn't a precedent. Secondly, the Bolshevik propaganda of the Israeli establishment--which the so-called "hero" embraced--convinced almost all of the right, which should have known better, that this was needed.
I can promise you that if Golda Meir had tried to evacuate the Sinai she would have met with ferocious resistance from average Israelis and the IDF itself
Based on everything. Compare her reputation to Begin's. Compare her approval ratings. Remember the taste that her military demoblilization had left in the aftermath of 1973. I'm not saying she would not have succeeded, but she would have had a much bigger fight than Begin did.
Based on what? You just made this up. Israelis would be equally supportive of her peacemaking if she had done it rather than begin.
If this is so, then they were even crazier then I thought, but I don't think so.
If she was the one saying 'no more bloodshed" and shaking sadat's hand she'd be heralded by the "peace delusional" to this day.
No, I don't think so at all. The left would worship her like they do Rabin, but they would not be able to sell the whole nation on it. The Israeli mainstream right would condemn her (even if in practice they support the exact same things).
And the same ones who oppose Begin on the right
For all practical purposes right-wing opposition to Begin was (and is) nonexistent.
Where do you get the idea that no one questions that move today? The majority of Israelis agrees with it for many reasons. But the rightwing/kahanists/settlers.... They don't.
Here is what I mean. I mean that opposing the Sinai retreat in hindsight today is considered a fringe position. If any Israeli were to start attacking it and accusing Begin of selling-out or denying that it brought real peace, people on all sides of the spectrum would consider him or her insane. The same is not true of criticism of Gush Katif. If I am not mistaken a huge percentage of Israelis (around 50%) have very big doubts about the Gaza expulsion in hindsight, and Israeli pundits (some of them not even that right-wing) criticize it all the time. It's not a blacklistable or fringe position.
And if Chaim disagrees with that, which I think you might say so, then I strongly disagree with him. But lets find out from Chaim, that would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
I know what he's said before on Ask JTFs about him.
But I'm already awake. And so is that small core who is ideologically willing to oppose the evil of the Israeli govt.
Even today the Kahanists are a very small minority even within the Israeli right. Most members of the Israeli so-called right haven't awakened, and still think Likud is the best/only choice.
You might be confusing the situation of America with that of Israel. In America, people wake up and then their 'angry letters' 'lobbying' calling congressman, staging rallies and protests, etc, all exercises of the democratic system, actually affect change. This type of "cab driver criticism" really does achieve things in America. It doesn't in Israel.
OK, here is what I mean. Most Israelis will not stand up and physically resist evil left-wing decisions. They certainly are willing to stand UP for evil left-wing policies though. During the Second Lebanon War, even at the height of the Hezbollah missile barrage across the northern half of Israel, the streets of Tel Aviv were jam-packed with freaks and mutants railing against the "targeting of Lebanese civilians". I don't even need to count the times that all public life in Israel has been brought to a standstill by Histadrut commie strikes. If the right used even half of that much force and strength in Israel, it would be almost impossible for evil Bolsheviks to implement what they do.
So that is irrelevant. It means nothing in Israel. It does not stop the judicial tyranny there. The more leftwing govt, the more leftwing judicial tyranny and evil policy, plain and simple. "Awake" or not, a person in Israel has to be willing. Only a small core in the rightwing is.
Yes, you are sadly correct. The vast majority of Israelis have been raised to be obedient to the "Jewish democracy" of the Israeli government--left, right, and center. There are plenty of Israelis who in their hearts are as right-wing as we are, but any sort of resistance is simply unthinkable to them. It's not even on their radar.
-
Two thumbs down
:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
-
I don't think it's fair to evaluate the life of Begin, his tenure as PM, or his contributions to Israel and the Jewish People, solely on the legacy of Camp David.
Yes, from a right wing or Kahanist standpoint, relinquishing the Sinai and the multi-lateral agreements with Egypt/Sadat/Carter/USA were wrong in principle and ultimately detrimental to Israel. Of that, there can be little doubt.
But it's intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate to evaluate Begin's life and career based on his unfortunate performance at Camp David alone.
Begin's early contributions can not and should not be dismissed. He was a great leader and a great man. A brave and tireless fighter for Israel.
Those of us old enough to remember him becoming PM, remember the galvanizing effect his election had on the right wing. It seemed like one of our own was in charge now and things would certainly move in the right direction. The right appeared to be invigorated and the influence of the left was waning.
Alas, we were to be disappointed.
There were some bright moments.
Who can forget Begin pounding the table at his press conference defending the raid on Osirak, saying 'We acted NOW !'
If only there were more moments like that (We can definitely use a moment like that now).
Instead, the right's exuberance over Begin waned during the fiasco in Lebanon and dissipated at Camp David.
Still, when looking at the totality of the life of Begin, I can't help but have fond feelings for the man. Despite his shortcomings and mistakes as PM, I still consider him a Jewish hero and a great man. Right or wrong, I'll always feel that way.
-
Not a 'rightwing zealot.' Not a zealot at all.
OK, fine, forget my paraphrase of the buzzwords that are used by the Bolshevik left to describe him to this very day. The worldwide left still considers him a fierce militant,
Maybe great britain does, but that's because he WAS a fierce militant against them, thank God. But we were talking about Israelis. Not brits or any other leftists.
-
But it's intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate to evaluate Begin's life and career based on his unfortunate performance at Camp David alone.
Yes, I agree 100%
-
He was a poor PM. But out of all them, he was a Jewish hero. A real idealist and a man amongst boys.
How can you be a poor leader and a hero yet at the same time? If I were to call any PM a "Jewish hero", it would be Levi Eshkol.
He was not a poor leader. He was a poor Prime Minister. You are putting words in my mouth! You even quoted me right there so how can you distort a quote that you retyped yourself?
-
"I can promise you that if Golda Meir had tried to evacuate the Sinai she would have met with ferocious resistance from average Israelis and the IDF itself "
That was you who said that one, Bones. Must have been a malfunction with your quoting/formatting.
-
I don't think people were saying "Well Begin is really rightwing so even though I don't trust sadat, Begin will protect me I have faith in him."
What is a secular Israeli to do? They have to have faith in something/someone, it's human nature. This is exactly why most Israelis supported the Gush Katif ethnic cleansing.
You just keep repeating your same lines over and over again. It is as if you are ignoring the fact that I am disputing them. Can you explain to me logically or with some type of evidence that Israelis back then DISBELIEVED that 'peace with Egypt' was a good idea but SIMULTANEOUSLY talked themselves into it by saying 'begin is rightwing, he must be right about this, even though I THINK ITS BAD' ? Because that was the point I was making. No. People really did believe it would be a good thing. So many people. That's the whole point. Just like with gush katif, no one was saying I see a, b, c, reason why this is evil and complete stupidity, but hey it's ol' sharon boy, so who cares what I think, it must be great? If it was a lefty, I would oppose, but a righty? I'm game. That is an illogical position.
The people were enamored with Sadat and his "gracious" visit to knesset. There was a hysteria. A national hysteria. The left and centrists supported it because they wanted peace. No more wars against egyptian garbage. The right some were probably deceived by Sadat... And those who weren't deceived by Sadat, I don't believe they would support Begin on that.
Nobody on the so-called right spoke up against Begin. Literally only a tiny handful of pioneers did--much smaller than the number that tried to resist Gush Katif.
So? Like I said, most were deceived by sadat and the whole peace charade. And those people (no matter how small in number they might have been) who were not deceived or caught up in the hoopla, opposed begin, were against him. "Save Yamit" campaign... whatever. They didn't talk themselves into it because 'well even tho I am opposed, begin is a' ok so let's go for it anyway'
And the same ones who oppose Begin on the right
For all practical purposes right-wing opposition to Begin was (and is) nonexistent.
No, you're wrong about this. People change over time as reality changes. You fail to understand this. There may have been very few people against Sinai/Yamit withdrawal back in Begin's day, but MANY MORE of the rightwing today look back at that as a negative thing, than there were at the time who thought it would be. Like I said, there was a hysteria back then.
For instance, Rabbi Kahane was always against it. He was somewhat alone then, but his following grew and grew from that point. More and more people came to agree with him. Many people today who oppose Oslo see the Sinai withdrawal as the first step in the process that set the whole thing in motion. It is very unfortunate. (And do not tell me there are almost no people who oppose Oslo. There are MANY! The israeli "street" is not what you imagine it...) Moshe feiglin is one person who has written on this subject before, but there are more pressing issues. Bringing up Sinai is like crying over spilled milk. Let's deal with our problems that are relevant right now like gaza, judea and samaria, etc. We need to drag Begin's name in the mud or throw bible verses at him as if he's some villain? That's going to accomplish something? We've already lost sinai, let's not lose the rest of Judea....
Like I've been trying to explain to you, Begin was an idealist. You have a narrow simplistic view of these issues. You cannot see that he is different from today's "bought-and-sold" gangster-politicians like Sharon and olmert and livni. That is tragically shortsighted. He was completely different. He made mistakes. He regretted them. He was a good man. He thought he was doing what was best for his country and his people, not what was "convenient" or what would earn him some prize (ie nobel) or keep him in power at any cost or what would make goyim applaud. He wasn't into that. Just ask the british. He thought he was doing what was best and he messed up as prime minister. But the rest of his life is to be celebrated for being a hero. There is no way you will ever change my mind about that because quite frankly, I know too many facts about Begin's life. Facts drive my opinions. And knowing what I know, it is impossible to buy your misconceptions and misinformed points. Once you know more about Begin you'll understand where I'm coming from.
-
You just keep repeating your same lines over and over again. It is as if you are ignoring the fact that I am disputing them. Can you explain to me logically or with some type of evidence that Israelis back then DISBELIEVED that 'peace with Egypt' was a good idea but SIMULTANEOUSLY talked themselves into it by saying 'begin is rightwing, he must be right about this, even though I THINK ITS BAD' ? Because that was the point I was making. No. People really did believe it would be a good thing. So many people. That's the whole point. Just like with gush katif, no one was saying I see a, b, c, reason why this is evil and complete stupidity, but hey it's ol' sharon boy, so who cares what I think, it must be great? If it was a lefty, I would oppose, but a righty? I'm game. That is an illogical position.
This is a strawmanning of my position. I didn't ever simplify it that much. I believe I said (a) Begin and Sharon had much greater reputations than Golda Meir or Ehud Barak and were respected on the Israeli "street" a lot more (which is undeniable and something you have admitted), (b) that Jews in general dislike killing and war and want peace at any cost most of the time, and (c) that the Israeli right will accept bad decisions from the Israeli "right" (whether or not they actually support them) more than they will from the openly hostile left.
Like I said, most were deceived by sadat and the whole peace charade. And those people (no matter how small in number they might have been) who were not deceived or caught up in the hoopla, opposed begin, were against him. "Save Yamit" campaign... whatever. They didn't talk themselves into it because 'well even tho I am opposed, begin is a' ok so let's go for it anyway'
This is partially true, but one would expect a patriotic, right-wing, nationalist Irgun leader to tell the people the truth about taqqiyah (which he surely knew, for his first few months as PM Begin was actually quite awesome) instead of caving to the peanut-raising dog rapist and selling his people down the river because he didn't know where to turn when the world is hating him. And once again, you are oversimplifying my statement... the most simple means I have of stating my position is "gee whiz these are tough choices and tough times, we don't want any more war, I never would have thought of this but Begin has the experience and battlefield smarts to make sound choices".
No, you're wrong about this. People change over time as reality changes. You fail to understand this. There may have been very few people against Sinai/Yamit withdrawal back in Begin's day, but MANY MORE of the rightwing today look back at that as a negative thing, than there were at the time who thought it would be. Like I said, there was a hysteria back then.
I don't think I ever denied that some things have improved on the ground. Whereas most on the Israeli left/right supported the banning of HaRav (zt"l) when it happened and considered him a religious fanatic, nowadays a majority of Israelis believe that the Kahanist voice should at least be heard. Whereas most Israelis supported the GK ethnic cleansing four years ago this summer, nowadays at least half have real doubts about it--left, right, and center. Still, the Sinai retreat has not yet moved into general public acceptance yet by any means. The vast majority of Israelis support it or do not think of it, including the "right". Maybe KAHANISTS are openly criticizing the Yamit ethnic cleansing, but the "regular" Israeli right (National Union Party, Moshe Feiglin, most Arutz Sheva contributors) haven't spoken about it yet. If the Kahanist MK would speak out about it (I must confess to forgetting his name) publicly, that would go a long way to forcing a public discourse on it.
For instance, Rabbi Kahane was always against it. He was somewhat alone then, but his following grew and grew from that point.
Yes, and he was blacklisted and then murdered. He is sadly bigger now than he ever was in his lifetime.
More and more people came to agree with him. Many people today who oppose Oslo see the Sinai withdrawal as the first step in the process that set the whole thing in motion. It is very unfortunate.
Maybe more people are starting to get there. A lot of Israelis, thank G-d, understand that Oslo was foolish today. But we aren't there yet in terms of them all tying together that all "land=peace" from the inception is fundamentally stupid. Too many still go along with the gov't.
(And do not tell me there are almost no people who oppose Oslo. There are MANY!
Why no, I was not going to say that at all, see above. Now, if LOTS of Israelis would be outraged about Sharon/Olmert letting the killers of Shalhevet Pass and Ehud Goldwasser walk scot-free and about the Peace House pogrom/rape.
The israeli "street" is not what you imagine it...) Moshe feiglin is one person who has written on this subject before, but there are more pressing issues. Bringing up Sinai is like crying over spilled milk. Let's deal with our problems that are relevant right now like gaza, judea and samaria, etc.
Hello, Israel surrendered 75% of its territory to Amalek in one afternoon. The Israeli people better wake up and see how insane that was.
We need to drag Begin's name in the mud or throw bible verses at him as if he's some villain? That's going to accomplish something? We've already lost sinai, let's not lose the rest of Judea....
Judaism emphasizes actions, not thoughts or motives. It doesn't matter whether or not he was an evil scheming kapo like Olmert or a very weak, cowardly leader who could not handle a browbeating (which he was). He did great things in his youth but what he did as PM nearly canceled that out. Begin is like Reagan--more right-wing than most, but was still responsible for all kinds of absolutely horrible policies.
Like I've been trying to explain to you, Begin was an idealist. You have a narrow simplistic view of these issues. You cannot see that he is different from today's "bought-and-sold" gangster-politicians like Sharon and olmert and livni.
I never said anything of the sort, not even remotely. I said that because he was secular and feared Carter more than G-d (Chaim's words--not mine!), he chickened out, sold out, and fell apart.
That is tragically shortsighted. He was completely different. He made mistakes. He regretted them.
Like I said before, I am not aware of any public repentance of his.
He was a good man. He thought he was doing what was best for his country and his people, not what was "convenient" or what would earn him some prize (ie nobel) or keep him in power at any cost or what would make goyim applaud.
It doesn't really matter what he thought, results are results. He truly feared Carter and the rest of the world. Maybe he wasn't deliberately sucking up the way Lewinsky is right now to Obama, but he definitely feared the United States, panicked (like the people), and didn't know what to do. Just because he wasn't pure evil doesn't mean that he was innocent, or even good. He caved in and fell apart.
He wasn't into that. Just ask the british.
We are talking about his later life when he was facing down the entire world, not his youth when (despite greatly heroic deeds and actions) when he wasn't. He may have faced more physical pressure when he was a freedom fighter, but he came under more psychological pressure as PM of Israel than almost every other world leader in history.
He thought he was doing what was best and he messed up as prime minister. But the rest of his life is to be celebrated for being a hero.
He was a hero in his youth. He was not in his later years. That's all I really have to say.
There is no way you will ever change my mind about that because quite frankly, I know too many facts about Begin's life. Facts drive my opinions. And knowing what I know, it is impossible to buy your misconceptions and misinformed points. Once you know more about Begin you'll understand where I'm coming from.
We haven't really disagreed on any facts, or anything about Begin's mindset. We both agree he wasn't a deliberate self-hater or traitor. We both agree that the Israeli people were and are desperate for peace. I just have higher standards than you do for hero.
-
Hindsight is always 20-20.
It's easy to look back on historical events and see that mistakes were made.
It's easy to denounce leaders for their shortcomings, and easy to lose sight of the good that they did. It is natural to dwell on the mistakes they made and say 'what if ?'.
It's not so easy to understand what went on in that leader's mind. It's not so easy to know what else could have been done and what would have occurred if different decisions and actions were taken.
Bones, if I'm not mistaken, you're 24 years old. You have the luxury of dispassionately analyzing Begin's performance and rightfully condemning Begin's poor decisions and shortcomings with the benefit of historical hindsight. Your obvious love for Israel motivates you to denounce his mistakes. But remember, you didn't live through those times and no one can know what it was like to be in Begin's shoes at the time those monumental decisions were made.
To this day there are conflicting opinions about the Camp David accords that Begin agreed to. Here at JTF, we understand that any 'peace' talks will ultimately prove to be fruitless and counterproductive. Here we understand that not only is there no one to talk to, but there's nothing to talk about. But our grasp on reality is unique. This is not the prevailing sentiment of the world now, and it wasn't the prevailing sentiment back in Begin's day.
Yes, it would have been wonderful if Begin had not compromised at all. In a perfect world this would have been the case. But the world isn't perfect and I believe Begin did what he thought was best for Israel at the time. This is not a justification or any sort of endorsement for his lamentable actions. This is only an explanation (albeit one you might not readily accept) to help understand Begin's actions.
I don't think Begin was duped by Sadat or Carter. I think he knew what and whom he was dealing with. I think he did what he thought was best, in a very difficult situation. In hindsight, I think we all agree he made a very bad mistake.
I remember Rav Kahane being asked what he thought about Sadat and Begin. The Rav pretty much summed it up when he said "Sadat made Begin look like an Arab". What an insult and condemnation, as only the Rav could provide in his own inimitable style.
That being said, in my opinion, although Begin's poor performance and numerous mistakes as PM undoubtably tarnish his legacy, his remarkable early history still ensures his place as a Jewish hero and one of Israel's greatest figures.
Of course, you are entitled to a different opinion, and I can understand why anyone so dedicated to Israel's well being wouldn't consider Begin a hero in the context of his performance as PM.